A USA Today story reports that a Lifetime TV poll suggested that many women agreed with Ferraro that Hillary was getting unfair coverage.

â€¢ 41% thought Democratic Sen. Barack Obama has received “more positive” news coverage because he is an African-American….

â€¢ 33% believed Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has received “more negative” news coverage because she is a woman…

Actually, I both agree and disagree on this.

Obama is a good speech giver, has charisma and he is black. All three of these things gives him a chance at good press coverage. If he were white, he’d probably either be unimportant like Ron Paul, or he’d be the next Eugene McCarthy, a nice fad to push during a dull time. But because he is black, there is also an underlying idea that voting against him or criticizing his ideas means you are prejudiced against Black Americans.

And in the rushed primary season, where only political activists vote, Obama has managed to get the left wing and black vote on his side just by being himself.

Obama is all things to all people, never mind his political stands (which few people know, because the press hasn’t covered them). He’s the fad of the day. He’s young, talks slick, and is black. He can walk on water, deliver the mail, and touch the sick and make them better instantly.

But Hillary? We’ve had eight years of Bill and know what we’ll get if she gets into office. Yup, Hillary is the dragon lady who you don’t really want to get mad.

Saint Obama can do no wrong, but Hillary gets criticized if she laughs or she cries or she is too stoic or she wears a pants suit or if she wears a dress.

But the real reason the press hates Hillary is that she is a strong woman. How dare she think she’s good enough to be a president.

Hillary Clinton has received a free pass from the media since day one. She receives a bit of negative press…she cries… the press feel sorry for her and the next day the story disappears. While the Obama stories keep going on and on and on. This distortion is not going to work anymore.

Ummmm, how can you look at statistics that give the OVERWHELMING sense of how Clinton has been trashed talked in the press, while Obama has been getting praise more than any other politician I have ever seen, for what, for speeches? What praise has come from a bold decision that translated into actual change? Come on! Just google their name in the news, every day for the next five days. I guarantee you that out of the top ten stories, at least 5 will have some negativity towards Clinton, and maybe one will be critical of Obama. This is out of control. I have done this simple exercise and its astounding how much hate and criticism this woman has received for things that are comparable to anyone else in office or even to Mr. Obama. Don’t get me wrong! She has flaws, no doubt. But so does your man Obama, and to forgive that without any indulgence is merely what the Republicans did with Bush–that our hero can do no wrong. People, I don’t ever think we were meant to fall in love with our politicians, we need to respect them and believe in them and I am sorry, Mr. Obama has not proven anything to me yet other than what he purports he can accomplish. Well, I have Mr. McCain and Hillary who have already accomplished much more.

Anna said,

in April 11th, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Its pretty clear who the blogger supports. And none of it is any different than the media she criticizes (i.e. nothing to do with the candidates’ issues or agendas. Ms.Ferraro’s reaction is mostly limited to women of that generation and age group. I do not see that vehemance in women my generation.

swuzy said,

in April 11th, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Why I, Pro-Hillary, Changed.

I was very much pro Hillary from the beginning of the campaigns. I still very much like her policy positions, her speeches, her personal enthusiasm, her energy, and very appealing projected cheerful positive personality.

There is not that much difference between her underlying positions and Obama’s.

However over time, and a deeper reading and review of Obama’s many positions, speeches, anecdotes and reviews of Obama’s leadership capabilities, mental and strategic insightfulness and adaptability, and underlying personality, I have come to believe that Obama is much much more substantial in all qualities as a presidential candidate.

The last straw of disappointment came with the unforgettably repeated Bosnia whopper and the subsequent attempts to dismiss questions about it. I worried that it might be the tip of the iceberg. There are several possibilities each of which is not good:

1. Does she really miss-remember? If so, what does that say about the acuteness of her Presidential mental tools? I.e., we are in trouble.
2. Does she fantasize and develop an extremely detailed fantasy of the events and then believed her embellished fantasy? If so, what does that say on how we can trust her in forming the foundations of her judgments in the future as a president? I.e., we are in trouble.
3. Does she deliberately and consciously lie and in detail, to further herself? If so, does that show an underlying weakness towards using that type of a crutch in critical pressure situations either to steam roller others or to hide a position or worse? I.e., we are in trouble.
See also, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120663639483768965.html?mod=todays_columnists

Looking further into this concern, I now believe that she really does have a repeating pattern of lapses in personal integrity. I still like her positions and presentations. However I think she is not electable. I don’t think she has the fantasy of a chance against John McCain, the straight talking express, and his team, and the Republican Swift boaters. Hillary’s character is like an iceberg, and her campaign is a ship like the Titanic.

There are several specific instances noted below.

Her boss on the Nixon impeachment team, Jerry Zeifman, the General Counsel and Chief of Staff of the House Judiciary Committee, a life long democrat, says her pattern of deception and unethical behavior goes back much further; he says –

He fired her and refused to give her a letter of recommendation, “Because she was a liar, …. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” http://www.jzeifman.com/
He “regrets” that he “had not reported her to the appropriate bar associations. …. Eventually, because of a number of her unethical practices I decided that I could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust.” http://www.aim.org/aim-column/hillarys-crocodile-tears-in-connecticut
Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception. …. The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, her boss Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge. http://www.jzeifman.com/

In the Whitehouse Travelgate firings, she denied having any involvement in the firings. An independent counsel grand jury investigation took sworn testimony from many people working with her, and elicited that she had directed the firings, and the independent counsel concluded that Hillary’s testimony was factually false. http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york061303.asp

Does anyone really believe that she, with no prior or subsequent experience of stellar success to show in stock and commodity trading really believe that out of the blue she was able to earn 10,000% in one year of commodity trading ($100,000 of profits after starting with $1,000, or eighty times George Soro’s best year) with the biggest gains on short selling, on her own after spending some time perusing the Wallstreet Journal as she says? That was unquestionably an assisted trading favor in the shade of under the table compensation (and at worse, a bribe through fraudulent transactions). http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n3_v47/ai_16709018

How can we have such a person be President? She would have to be dealing and negotiating with multiple foreign leaders, domestic leaders, many different constituencies, all having different agendas. Would she be agreeing to or promising one thing after she had forgotten prior promises in another direction? Would she be saying one thing, while working behind the scenes to do something else? Would she be fabricating fantasies to support her positions when such positions are unfounded and have no popular support? Who can trust her? We had a problem with President Nixon’s integrity, working surreptitiously behind the scenes at Watergate. We have a problem with President Bush’s character, fantasizing about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and fantasizing about Saddam’s support for Al Queda. How could we have taken such huge risks electing Presidents who are so flawed in their underlying integrity and character? I am sad to conclude that Hillary’s pattern of ethical lapses reveal a fundamental tragical weakness that simply makes her not electable, no matter how otherwise appealing she may seem to be.

Susan said,

in April 11th, 2008 at 1:46 pm

I think Anna is spot on. It seems to me that Hillary has always operated with the premise of entitlement for the nomination. Now that she “suddenly and unexpectedly” sees that she may no longer be a shoo in, she has acted out–sometimes with little more grace than a bratty teenager–blaming others for her situation. I think her (and her supporters) sense of entitlement is what explains her behavior and makes her so unappealing to many of the rest of us. In that sense, Barack Obama really is the breath of fresh air that he is touted to be. Authenticity, not entitlement, matters.

John said,

in April 11th, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Consider the source and the source’s motivation. Most television press coverage is delivered in a way to move ratings and therefore ad revenue upwards. If the press makes a big deal out of Hillary “crying” it’s because our fellow Americans will tune in to see that clip over and over. The clip with Barack’s pastor condemnation of America got more attention than it warranted as well. Why? Because we Americans eat that stuff up(present company excluded), and Rupert Murdoch and his ilk are primarily interested in making lots of money.

What I don’t understand is why so many of us feel we have to get so polarized over the choice between Clinton and Obama. Is the news-for-profit industry fueling this division?

Gender and race do matter. I went to the precinct caucuses flip-flopping between the two and ultimately will be delighted to elect either in November. Hillary is good enough to be President, so is Barack.

-50 year old white guy

Jay said,

in April 11th, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Hogwash!

Here’s an insightful essay written by Ariel Gatfinkel, a sophomore at Mt. Holyoke College:

The epic struggle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama reveals strong fault lines between some older and younger women, first underscored by no less than Gloria Steinem who scorned those of us supporting a male over a female. Women of my generation venerate Steinem for her pioneering leadership but tend to reject her insinuation that the Democratic primary winner must have a body like our own. Beyond the importance of race and gender, we believe this election should be about a vision for the nation, leadership style and basic political values.

On the style side, the contrast could hardly be more evident. As the media endlessly ran clips of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, suggesting somehow that Obama was responsible for the extremes of his minister (a scrutiny, by the way, not applied by the media to the provocative spiritual advisors of John McCain), Hillary ducked to let the circus continue. Failing to show true leadership by denouncing one pastor’s views as fair game in evaluating a presidential candidate, Hillary sat it out apparently hoping the focus on Wright might injure Obama. While missing her own principled moment, Hillary was left to watch Obama rise to his.

As the media, perhaps correctly, noted that by remaining in the race, Clinton might be jeopardizing a Democratic White House for four more years, Obama stood up to say that Clinton has every right to remain in the race. How easy it would have been for Obama, even coyly, to have egged on the calls for Clinton’s withdrawal. In fact, he came to her defense, showing both a difference in style and principle. Ironically, it was the male candidate rather than the female who exhibited one of the values of feminism, the unwillingness to accept the old style politics played by men for decades.

That some older women accept such displays of un-feminist leadership on the part of Hillary Clinton may be due to their understandable and long-desired election of a woman. But we should remember that feminism is not about women only but about changing the values and style of discourse in the nation. On this count too, Clinton comes up far short by exhibiting much of her husband’s tendency toward the old politics.

These politics and their perverse values have been the norm in the Clinton campaign. Paramount, perhaps, is Hillary’s willingness to condone racial divisiveness as a tool to win the nomination. It began with Bill Clinton dismissing Obama’s impressive win in South Carolina as unimportant because it was a Black win, a race “even Jesse Jackson won.”

As if to underscore that this reach into the racial gutter was not a mistake, Clinton advisor Geraldine Ferraro, a paragon of feminism gone awry, offered up her own race-based dismissal: Barack Obama is ahead only because of his skin color (did Ferraro really wish to open the door to people saying the same about Hillary because of her gender?). This was not simply an ignorant rendering of the nation’s racial history, but an attempt to fan division in a most “old boy” way. And Hillary’s sitting out the Jeremiah Wright controversy simply added icing to the Clinton campaign cake of racial division.

vote4thebest said,

in April 11th, 2008 at 3:29 pm

when the media refused to carry and dig into the story with Wright, an anti-white and anti-maerican, then we can see how blatantly the media has become. But this means that Obama is not fully vetted and will most likely loose in the general election.

joe said,

in April 11th, 2008 at 3:48 pm

I don’t care what the press does or says. I’ve been following both candidates closely throughout the campaign. I agree that race and gender effect the voters, but these issues should not matter. That’s simply identity politics and that’s old and destructive. And Nancy, you’ve bought into that and you prepetuate it.
I suypport Barack because of his character (see his March 18th speech as only one example). If he was green and transgender, I’s still support her/him.
And I’m just an old 58 year old white guy.

becky said,

in April 13th, 2008 at 8:17 am

Having been present at one of the rallys covered by the press – I have first hand knowledge of press bias. I have been appalled at the new age MaCarthy like black balling of an imperfect, intelligent, capable
American. Barrack seens like a decent man but there is not enough history for me to feel comfortable with him as president -at this time. These are difficult and treacherous times for America on many levels.
Yes a strong woman is still unacceptable in this society. We are so far behind other western (and many eastern)societies…what is holding us back?

Katy said,

in April 14th, 2008 at 11:09 am

Hillary got a free ride from day one, when the press annointed her Queen. She has earned the bad press she has received through her pettiness, bitterness, combative attitude, smarminess, and meanness. And I am an older white woman. Obama has been campaigning against 3 candidates–Hillary, Bill, and McCain–and has done quite well under the pressure. He is more presidential and acts more presidential. She has no grace, and it doesn’t take long to figure that out. Once the press spent enough time around her they started reporting fairly. Because the reporting took a negative turn, her supporters say they are unfair. No, they were unfair in the first 9 months when they were drinking the koolaid. Hopefully they are in rehab now.

Simply desire to say your article is as surprising. The clarity in your post is simply spectacular and i can assume you are an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission allow me to grab your feed to keep up to date with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please continue the rewarding work.

Leave A Reply

Username (*required)

Email Address (*private)

Website (*optional)

Advertisements

BloggerNews On The Air

We are pleased to announce our latest endeavor, Blogger News is now sponsoring some radio shows on Blog Talk Radio. You can check our full schedule, and listen to previous broadcasts here, and we hope that you will join us on the air in this new venture.